My fave from the referenced Post Vern's Post # 15 "As for your protest speculation, who cares? I can come up with solutions to all of your concerns while making coffee in the morning half asleep. What do you think procurement is -- rocket science?"

Well, apparently the FBI should have cared. Perhaps they should have consulted with a Rocket Scientist. Kudos to them for trying. I AM a fan of such innovation, however, as I speculated, such an order instrument would not withstand a protest and indeed it did not.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You need to stop celebrating and reread that thread, especially your own posts, and the GAO's decision.

You made a bold assertion. I asked for your argument. You simply asserted, offering no reasoning or proof. Instead, you analogized your statement to god and said that you could not prove that it was true. I called you on it.

That thread was specifically about GSA FSS contracts. The GAO's new Harris decision is about multiple-award contracts subject to FAR Subpart 16.5, and the GAO reasoned to its decision based on the requirements of FAR 16.505 and the "fair opportunity" statute, which it implements. Those requirements do not apply to GSA FSS contracts. GSA FSS contractors are not entitled to a fair opportunity to be considered under FAR 16.505. You never mentioned FAR 16.505 or the underlying statute in your posts, and you did not confine your assertion to non-schedule multiple award IDIQ contracts. GAO's decision does not support your assertion about GSA FSS contracts. As far as I know, GAO has not ruled on fair opportunities under FAR 8.405-3.

Having said that much, the Harris decision is very interesting, but it cannot stop the issuance of IDIQs against IDIQs that are valued at below the $10 million protest threshold. The only way to stop that will be through contract claims, assuming that the boards and the COFC will agree with GAO. I wonder if agencies will issue policies to prevent the practice.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Obviously I was referring to FAR 16.505. Otherwise my topic would have read "You cannot issue a BPA against a BPA." I didn't think I needed to explain it to you. Regardless, I speculate GAO would rule the same if one were to issue an ID/IQ order instrument against an established FAR 8.405-3 multiple award BPA.

And your answer for issuing an ID/IQ order instrument under FAR 16.505 is to simply stay under the $10M protest threshold knowing the practice would not withstand one. Brilliant. Too bad FAR 8.4 orders cannot partake in the same GAO protest pass. The GSA FSS program could enjoy issuing BPA orders under BPAs.